Will the real racists please stand up? — 56 Comments
I saw this when it came out (18 months ago?).
It is brilliant because it is absolutely correct and it shows how to combat the absurdity engulfing us.
Neo and many of the commenters have written extensively about Cloward & Piven, Saul Alinsky and the strategies employed by Leftists to silence debate. Their ideas are provably wrong and wilt when exposed to truth so they have become experts at halting discussion in order to train people to not examine their statements.
We have to play the race card before they do.
We have to play the misogyny card before they do.
We have to play the homophobia/transphobia/islamophobia, etc. cards before they do.
As shown in this video, when the topic of voting rights comes up ask the speaker why he or she believes black people are incapable of getting proper IDs? Does the speaker believe black people are less intelligent than other races?
When the topic of informed abortion laws comes up ask the speaker why he or she believes women are incapable of making the best decision for their own health when provided evidence and information? Does the speaker believe women are too emotional or dim to understand medical data?
And on and on. It’s tedious. It’s frustrating. But we have to do it. We actually have the facts and science and truth on our side. State the truth. Openly. And do not hesitate to begin the discussion by stating what they are if they believe what they believe they believe. They are racist. They are misogynist. They are imperialists.
They want to keep the truth cloaked in darkness and due to our indolence they have become very skilled at it. But, also due to our indolence, they have become very complacent. Expose them. Expose the truth. Be polite. But be honest.
Regarding my comment, and Ami Horowitz’ video; what do you think would happen if he went back to the folks he interviewed in the first half and showed them the second half? Many of them would begin to open their eyes and see their own racism. We have to take the scales off their eyes by explicitly calling them out. It can be briefly uncomfortable, but when you get adept at it the other person is the one who becomes uncomfortable relatively quickly.
A subset of the same technique I often deploy. When someone opens a conversation with me, “I can’t believe what the racist/sexist/whateverist Trump/Republicans/Ron DeSantis… is doing know with his/her latest proposal/policy/tweet…”
I’ll calmly and succinctly reply, “I don’t think you’ve read the policy.” Or, I don’t think you understand the policy/tweet/proposal…”
First, it shocks them. They are so used to agreement or acquiescence they aren’t typically prepared for intelligent discussion. Second, it immediately puts them on the defensive. They have to explain what they mean. The more words they use the more openings you have to pick apart their words for elements of racism/misogyny and general illiberalism.
Right now, accusation of racism are a tool for a small group of mostly white people to take power over a larger group of mostly white people.
To do this, they are playing motte-and-bailey games with “racism” defined as a grave moral failure to treat individuals justly, and “racism” defined as any system generating undesirable and disparate impacts by demographic.
No one wants to be in the first category of “racist” so the trick is to get people to buy into changes that affect the systems in the second definition (voting, etc).
The video shown above will not work on this group who know perfectly well what they are doing. If it gets widespread enough Vox will do another explainer on what “racism” is really and this video “misunderstands”…
We’re not dealing with people who discuss issues in good faith here.
Rufus T. Firefly:
Perhaps a few of them would do what you describe. But I think very very few. It’s not that easy to change people’s minds; they have too much invested in believing what they believe. I think it far more likely that they would say some variant of this: “Well, of course some black people are perfectly able to get ID. The people you interviewed were clearly that type of person – fairly aware, educated, well-functioning. But there are also large numbers of black people who are not like that, a higher percentage than in other groups, and they would have trouble getting IDs. This failure is not their fault, of course. It is due to the failure of our white supremacist culture to quit being racist.”
Frederick and neo,
I am careful when using the techniques I outline (for example I do not use them with someone raving madly), but they have pretty much always worked for me. I don’t mean to imply I instantly changed anyone’s mind or voting patterns, but the tone of the conversation almost immediately changes to one of discussion and give and take. And in future conversations the other party would always begin in a more nuanced manner.
Here’s an example of one of the times it was almost instantly successful in getting the speaker to examine his statement. After I stated my comeback it was almost like a scene in a movie where a needle goes across a record, making a screeching noise.
During the Obama/Romney race a young man who was in Seminary studying to be a Priest made a statement, “I can’t believe there are Christians who would actually consider voting for Mitt Romney. He wants to decrease taxes on the wealthy.”
I replied, “Is forcing a rich man to give of his largesse unwillingly, through the threat of an armed tax collector arresting him and putting him in prison likely to change his heart to be more charitable? How does handing money to the poor help them develop the skills necessary to raise themselves from poverty? And, how does voting to force other people to do what you are not personally doing benefit you?” He stood and silently stared. After a few, uncomfortable minutes of silence I brought up another subject and we had a nice conversation. When I next saw him, several months later, we had another long conversation about many things but I could tell he had been reading and studying Conservative viewpoints.
I find I have the most luck with this with younger people. I have gotten many middle-aged and older people to acquiesce to points I make, but I doubt they go off and examine new sources, etc. Most old people are not willing to invest time to learn new things. But almost always with young people I find they are willing to give a little ground. They see that I’m quick on my feet and know the subject matter better than they do.
Another thing that I find works well with young people is I will restate their view more cogently. Make their argument for them, but better than they are. “Oh, you want women to get more pay? Congress made equal pay for equal work the law of the land in 1963, and statistics show academic and career freedom correlate directly with career choices; the more free women are to choose in society the less likely they are to choose careers in Science, Engineering or executive management in business. So a more effective way to achieve your goal is to advocate for higher pay in women dominated fields, like childcare and elementary education.”
Human nature. First, they instantly see you know more about the subject than they do, and that there are some important things that have been kept from them. No one wants to look like an idiot, so they won’t argue your points; that there is a Federal law mandating equal pay or that women in free societies are less likely to choose STEM and business executive careers. With no further debate you have gotten them to cede two, very important pieces of the puzzle. Then, there is a chance they will go away a bit mad that their sources of information have kept important pieces of the puzzle from them.
I agree, you will rarely if ever get immediate change. But the more it happens the more likely folks are to consider new perspectives. When Rush Limbaugh passed away we were flooded with such stories. Variations on, “I turned on the radio to listen to this idiot, blowhard spout nonsense, but some of the things he said caused me to think a bit …”
I will also add, when it first came out I showed Ami Horowitz’ video to several, different young people and it definitely got them to rethink their views. The second half is very powerful. Young, “white” people in our society are trained to recoil from most any negative imposition someone viewed as “black” may “feel.” Watching real, live, “black” people in Harlem get angry with statements made by “whites…” The young people I showed it to did not want to identify with the “privileged” “whites” in the video the instant it was shown their views were not in favor with “blacks*.”
*I do not put “white” and “black” in quotes because I do not believe in skin tones, genetics or ethnicity. I do. I just think it’s absurd that in 2021 we are still segregating people into such categories.
Rufus T. Firefly:
I agree that one must pick and choose who to discuss things with, and that it’s best to not deal with those who are very very very partisan.
The problem I’ve encountered is that unless I know the person well, it’s not easy to tell who is very extreme on the subject. With those I know better, I’ve often engaged with people with whom I have reasonable conversations and make good points in the moment. But I find that, over time, it has zero effect on their politics. They don’t seem to want to change, no matter how many times the challenge happens.
And it doesn’t matter at all that they might realize I know more about a certain subject. In my experience, that tends to make people angry – sometimes even those who until then were politely discussing matters. It may be because people don’t expect it from a woman and they feel extra humiliated by that (in that case, the “people” I’m talking to tend to be men). Or, if I’m talking to a woman, sometimes the woman says I “argue like a lawyer” which is somehow considered to be having an unfair advantage.
At any rate, it does not seem to have engendered change in anyone. However, the only young people I’ve ever talked to about these things are very very partisan and don’t seem open to it at all, nor do I have the opportunity to talk to young people very often.
I will also add I’ve had success with these tactics with young gays and bi-sexuals. They are very sensitive to authoritarianism. And most all the Left’s policies are authoritarian. It’s easy to simply rephrase what they are advocating for as a policy limiting choice and freedom. Gay marriage was an easy one. When asked by gays if I supported gay marriage legislation. I’d reply:
“I don’t even support heterosexual marriage legislation. Why do we want to give the government jurisdiction over who consenting adults can associate with?”
You could just about see smoke coming from their overtaxed neural circuitry as competing, incongruent synapses fired. Instead of answering their question I asked them why they wanted the government to be involved with their sex lives?
Rufus T. Firefly:
That’s interesting that some young people really had some changes of opinion when you showed them the video.
The problem is that the black people interviewed in Harlem are not the black people that voter ID would keep from the polls.
Black people who are afraid of the police and afraid of arrest, for crimes they actually did commit or for ones that they worry that they will be framed for, will be hesitant to vote in person (with or without an ID requirement) and will be hesitant to show an ID to get an absentee ballot. It stands to reason that these people also wouldn’t agree to do a television interview with a white guy on the street.
Without voter ID laws, the Democrats can easily keep those votes in play by having someone else vote under their names and/or get absentee ballots under their names. With voter ID, this gets a lot more difficult.
Rufus T. Firefly
Gay marriage was an easy one. When asked by gays if I supported gay marriage legislation. I’d reply:
“I don’t even support heterosexual marriage legislation. Why do we want to give the government jurisdiction over who consenting adults can associate with?”
Recall what Kinky Friedman said about gay marriage:
I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.
Yeah, I really don’t buy the racist argument, but you know who does really struggle with IDs?
The homeless.
Everything they have gets stolen at random intervals.
…and you can either make it easy to get duplicate IDs without a bunch of proof, making the IDs mostly useless, or you can make it almost impossible for them to get IDs.
I can’t say I have any idea how to address that one, or why the left doesn’t beat us up with that real issue instead of the fake race-based one.
Tim:
Many states make IDs easy to get and even make it possible to get free ones.
Racism is the argument that people prefer and also the one the courts prefer. Not all inequalities are equally persuasive legally.
I recently read Idiot Wind, by Peter Kaldheim. In the ’80s he fled NYC due to a drug dealing debt he couldn’t honor. Somewhere along the way he lost his ID. When he finally settled down in Portland as one of the homeless, it wasn’t difficult to get an ID. It just took a number of steps before he had a state-issued ID.
He ended up salvaging his life, working as a high-end chef. Not precisely where he thought he’d end up with his degree from Dartmouth, but definitely a step up from being homeless. Getting off cocaine helped.
“I don’t even support heterosexual marriage legislation. Why do we want to give the government jurisdiction over who consenting adults can associate with?”
Rufus…that’s been my go-to for a number of years. I usually follow that up with, “At most, gov’t may have a compelling interest in ‘minimum age’ requirements for marriage.”
But beyond that…if the gov’t wants all the info for tracking, taxing, & genealogical tracing of family trees, then they can do all that in a county clerk’s office on their time. And I’m no big fan of that either.
Once upon a time, I was doing lunch with a friend of mine. The subject of global warming came up (it was not yet “climate change” back then). We had our back-and-forth, a bit extended, I might say. I made my points and refuted many of his, and vice versa. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
So what’s my point? Stay tuned . . .
A few weeks after that lunch, we had another conversation (I’m pretty sure it was another lunch, but not important). The subject of global warming came up. Jim made one of his points, and I referred back to that first conversation. “Hey, Jim, don’t you remember when we discussed this before, and I pointed out (such-and-such)?” Not so much that I was indisputably right [but of course, I was (grin)], but really (I was feeling), do we have to go over the same old ground with the same old point-counterpoint again?
And now, the point you’ve all been waiting for . . .
Jim had no memory of the earlier conversation. “Don’t you remember when you said this and I said that?” Blank. NO RECOLLECTION. It was as though the first conversation had not taken place. For Jim, it had not.
At least I can be gratified that Rufus (2:29 pm, 3:32 pm) has had success. For M J R, limited success, but only when they listen. How often is that, I’m tempted to wonder. Of course, if there *is* limited success, will the other guy admit it? “A mind is a difficult thing to admit to.”
Naaah, doesn’t quite work . . .
“I don’t even support heterosexual marriage legislation. Why do we want to give the government jurisdiction over who consenting adults can associate with?”
The nicest thing I can say about that remark is that it is libertarian.
“Consenting adults” engaged in sexual affairs other than marriage ( and the propagation of children) eventually lead to societal collapse and destruction.
I regard most libertarians as shallow-minded, remarkably uninformed people, and give thanks they remain a small minority. “If it feels good, and harms nobody else, it’s OK” is their credo. That is a house built on sand, not rock. Clearly they have not read the Torah or the Bible, or Aristotle, Plato or any of the other great thinkers that have graced humanity thru the ages.
Neo: “It doesn’t matter at all that they might realize I know more about a certain subject. In my experience, that tends to make people angry – sometimes even those who until then were politely discussing matters.”
This.
And, superficially off-topic, I won’t forget the wave of cognitive dissonance that washed over a close friend’s face when I mentioned five years ago that the “Hands up — don’t shoot” narrative about Michael Brown is verifiably false. She had never heard such a thing, and she has no memory today of that conversation.
Cicero,
You are putting words in my mouth (err, keyboard). I did not say anything was “OK,” or not “OK.” I said the government should not be involved with whom grown adults fall in love with. My wife and I were married by our Church. Our Church has a lot of rules on the subject and some are excommunicated from my Church for violating those rules.
Render unto Caesar.
I didn’t make this point in my prior comments, but there is an additional component to my approach. As Margaret Thatcher said, “The facts of life are Conservative.” And someone else (Churchill?) said, “Every one is Conservative about what matters to them.”
I use that when I reply to their attacks by posing questions to them. In the case of the Seminarian I knew his ballywick was people’s souls. In the case of the non-hetero lifestyle debaters I know they are very concerned about personal freedom. Most all young women believe they are opressed by a patriarchy. Question them about the loss of personal agency in wishing to grant Congressmen (say it with derision and stress the “men” syllable”) power over their choices when they bring up some policy issue. Environmentalists? I start by stating that I too am concerned about greenhouse gases and ask if they agree that we should manage our old growth forests better and use more nuclear energy?
As M J R points out, we know all their talking points. They are shoved down our throats from all directions. So make it clear you are well versed on the topic and immediately respond with a question that implicates their view while simultaneously showing their view violates a principle that is also very important to them. When I do it I typically do it very sincerely (unless it’s a good friend, or my children); as if I truly am wrestling with the issue myself and am seeking their wisdom.
I have been in MollyG’s shoes regarding ignorance of Michael Brown. The way I brought up the subject is; “What do you think of the McIlhenny’s having trouble staging their play of the direct reading of the trial transcripts because of theaters concerned about the truth of the ‘hands up don’t shoot’ lie being proven wrong in the trial?”
It’s a bit of a sleight of hand. We’re no longer talking about politics, we’re talking about theater and censorship, which is a much less boring topic. And, I’m giving the other party a chance to save face. When I’ve had that exact conversation the other person always replies that they have not hear of the play. They never admit they do not know “hands up don’t shoot” was proven wrong. So as we then start to discuss the play it’s a foregone component of the ensuing conversation that it is a lie.
@MJR:Jim had no memory of the earlier conversation. “Don’t you remember when you said this and I said that?” Blank. NO RECOLLECTION. It was as though the first conversation had not taken place. For Jim, it had not.
“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”
There’s another figure, one it would be folly to quote by name, who discussed his experience dealing with strategic stupidity among his political opponents in a famous book.
@Rufus:
Because any community, any society, requires governance in some form, and thus government has a say in something whether as fundamental or as bizarre as marriage, “love”, or sexual relationships of various flavors with their various undesired sequelae.
Rule by “Caesars” must be wise and virtuous (Aristotle again) or its society will decay and crumble, as we see that occurring all around us now. Aristotle’s best form of government was by an aristocracy (educated and dutiful), his worst was tyranny (rule by fear), but democracy (mob rule) ranked near his bottom level. He also despised oligarchs (money and power grubbers).
What we have here today is a democracy run by oligarchs.
Happy days!
Frederick (7:00 pm), I am familiar with the author of whom you speak. Out of deference to you, I won’t name the name, either. But . . . why??
Why “would [it] be folly” to name the name? Are you in a position to respond without giving the name away?
MJR,
The liberal forgetfulness to which you referred is a quite common phenomenon. Years ago, commenter O’Bloody Hell identified it and has since trademark’d it as “The Liberal Midnight Reset Button”
“The Liberal Midnight Reset Button® operates to protect Officially Accepted Liberal Dogma® from challenges to the latters’ “integrity”.
Consider:
a) Suppose you meet a libtard who appears reasonable (they do exist… kinda like actual true moderate Muslims). They are open and honest and fully willing to discuss, without excessive histrionics, any point of view they espouse…
b) Now, pick a topic dear to them, which you know they believe in but which you also know to be clearly wrongheaded, even if well-meaning.
c) Start with their supposition, and take them, step by logical step through from their supposition, getting acquiescence at each stage: “Yeah, that follows, uh-huh…”. Show by such reasoning that the net affect of their supposition is the end result will be the exact opposite of what they purportedly support or believe in.
d) OK, you’ve won. Now what? Wait. You’ll hear something like… “Hmmm. I’m going to have to think about that.”, and you’ll go your own separate ways.
e) Now, a week passes, seek them out. Bring the subject of their supposition up again, subtly. You will hear them espousing the exact same notions of their original supposition unchanged, unaltered, as though the entire reasoning process you took them through in “c” never happened!
So what happened? The Liberal Midnight Reset Button® is what happened. At some point in the ensuing day or so, after they dropped off to sleep, their tiny widdle libtard brain started to process the new information. It carefully examined the new information in relation to Officially Accepted Liberal Dogma® (OALD), found it to be unacceptably running counter to it, and purged the new information without adding it to the libtard’s store of knowledge. BAM, conflict ended, Liberal Twitticism remains intact.
With practice, you can even watch this thing start to kick in as you have the discussion with them. In many cases, if they learn you’re “dangerous” to their precious Officially Accepted Liberal Dogma®, they will preemptively act to terminate, redirect, or otherwise alter the conversation to avoid the necessary mental CPU cycles required to purge the non-agreeing data.
You think I’m being facetious? Only in a sense. This process does exist and it really does act to prevent true libtards from actually learning anything new. And yes, I’ve seen it kick in on more than one occasion.
I will follow this up with my open contention that there are several clearly defining qualities of liberals, not the least of which is an almost absolute LACK of any kind of “wisdom”, that is, understanding of the world gained from experience of the world. Knowledge gained from experience, as opposed to intellect, which is knowledge gained from books.
If there was a “WQ” test to match the IQ test, then on the inevitable bell curve of the WQ, you would find liberals almost uniformly occupying the bottom third of that bell curve.
The reason is the Liberal Midnight Reset Button®.
This is why they have endless faith in Light Rail, in Communism/Socialism/Collectivism.
No matter how many times they fail, abysmally, utterly, they just need to be “tweaked” to work better.”
Both Rufus and G. B. have, in effect, described returning a serve.
I’ve never gotten that far. Early in the convo, the lib insists, heatedly, on the validity of some premise which is absolutely false.
If, for example, I bring up reports that NOAA “adjusted” temps in the Thirties downward so as to make current temps seem more dramatic, the lib will say, stoutly, that they never heard of it and won’t hear of it.
GB & MJR…I see it in their eye almost immediately…it’s a faraway gaze that tells me no matter what info I input…it’s there only transitorily.
I have a dear friend who’s said more times than I can count “Trump’s divisive.” (Also takes climate change as seriously as I take the Gospel…another story) But I’m 2 decades older & know more US history & have demonstrated from the written record of the left doing the actual dividing…& I get that “look” & a week later…”Trump’s divisive.”
That liberal “reset” button often doesn’t with ’til midnight.
Oh & yeah…racism exists in American alright…but usually it’s found among white leftists & especially those “closed American minds” of the college student leftist.
@MJR:Why “would [it] be folly” to name the name? Are you in a position to respond without giving the name away?
There’s too much guilt by association going around. Not everyone here is very anonymous, and not everyone here is independently wealthy and/or retired. Some people here still have to be able to move among the woke in order to make a living.
And there always algorithms looking for key words.
And there’s always the stupid, willful or otherwise, who will not make the “use/mention” distinction or the “quote/approve” distinction.
Frederick (8:07 pm): Check.
“Will the real racists please stand up?”
They are starting to at least raise their hands.
Major League Baseball has announced that it is playing the 2021 All-Star Game in Denver, Colo. instead of Atlanta, Georgia.
…
The politics can’t be lost here, since MLB made a political decision to side with Joe Biden and the left’s lies regarding Georgia’s new election law.
…
MLB has rewarded a blue state after criticizing a red state over a voting law that’s less restrictive than some blue states including Delaware so pro baseball is now a blue sport.
Atlanta is a black-majority city, with 51% of its population black.
Denver is one of America’s whitest major cities; just over 9% of Denver is black. More than 76% of it is white.
MLB’s decision has cost many of Atlanta’s black residents their jobs and income on game night; their loss is Denver’s gain.
…
Colorado requires signature verification. But Colorado does not require photo voter ID; it does require non-photo ID to vote though. It’s in the majority of states on that (34 require some form of voter ID); voter ID enjoys overwhelming support across all American populations supporting photo voter ID. Presumably, MLB will not require photo ID to pick up tickets at the will call window for the game at Coors Field. To require photo ID there or even to buy a Coors at Coors Field would be hypocritical.
…
Another major difference between the two states concerns mail-in ballots. Colorado mails them out automatically; Georgia does not. Georgia is in the majority there too; prior to COVID just six states (all but one, blue) allowed mail-in ballots. Presumably MLB will demand for all 50 states to allow mail-in ballots now (as opposed to absentee, which is not the same thing).
Since MLB is political and now advocates exclusively for Democrat preferences, it should register as a lobbying organization and have its anti-trust protections revoked.
That will only happen if Republicans recapture Congress, so MLB will presumably lobby to oppose that too, and punish red states while rewarding blue states accordingly.
Meanwhile MLB will continue doing business in China and Cuba, two of the world’s most notorious communist dictatorships. China is credibly accused of genocide by its Han majority against its Uighur minority. MLB is silent regarding this systemic racism in China.
The pushback on this round of virtue-signaling has been intense; I pretty much picked this post at random. It doesn’t mention the quandary, noted in other articles, of the difficulty in picking a Blue state that didn’t have more restrictive laws than Georgia enacted.
Will we reach a tipping point of revulsion that finally starts a conservative action cascade?
Add in the outrage against the 60 Minutes hit piece (not that those are anything new at CBS), including from Florida Democrats, and the Left may have finally jumped the shark.
M J R, Molly G, Geoffrey: on the liberal midnight reset button.
Granted that the experiencing of said button in action is infuriating, the nefarious political context may only be incidental in some cases.
I can have a long talk with AesopSpouse about our plans for the week, but the next day it is as if the conversation has never happened; and this has been so for decades.
Sometimes it’s just the way people are.
There are certainly people that are so in love with their own opinions there is no point trying to have a nuanced discussion with them, but I assure you my approach will work with more people than many of you imagine. Again, I am not stating you will change any one’s mind in the moment, but you can get a lot of people to think, and to start thinking differently. Most people aren’t that interested in politics. Most everyone is very interested in her or himself. And most everyone has one or two other things that are very important to them; sports, television, movies, music, religious tenets, the law, engineering, physics, business…
As I wrote earlier, non-Leftists are typically fairly well versed in all sides of an issue because the culture is permeated with the Leftist view. That’s your first advantage. You know more about the topic than they do.
Next; do not be confrontational. Take it away from politics. You do not want them to know you are actually raising a political point and you do not want them to know you are disagreeing with them. Many people get instantly defensive at the first sign of any disagreement. At that point they shut down. Use collaborative terms to avoid the sense of confrontation. “I know how important such and such is to you, that’s why I imagine you to are very concerned about such and such…”
Third, focus on one of those non-political things you know is important to them. If it’s religion, bring up a religious element. If it’s women’s rights, bring up a women’s rights element. If it’s sports, bring up a sports element. If it’s science, bring up a science element. Make it about them and what’s important to them.
Finally, respond with a question. Don’t answer theirs, and for goodness sakes don’t answer theirs in the negative.
Example with M J R’s global warming lunch. If the topic comes up reply, “Yes the climate is one of the most important factors for maintaining life on Earth and human health. It’s critical we have accurate data so we can gauge what’s really going on and how well mitigation effects are working. I’m sure you are as mad as I am that Michael Mann refuses to release the data he used to construct the hockey stick model the UN and IPCC have used to form policy.”
It’s a fairly simple reply but a lot is going on there. First, there is a lot of agreement there. It is not adversarial. Second, there is some building there. Switching the topic to “accurate data.” Who can be against accurate data? Third, I’m introducing the subject of one of the cornerstones of climate change, Michael Mann, and forcing them to defend his flaws. Fourth, by mentioning Mann by name, “UN,” “IPCC” it sounds like I know a lot about the topic. So the person is going to be hesitant to try to “outscience” me in their reply. Fifth, I have asked them a direct question that they can only answer one way, and that answer cedes a key point to me. They cannot reply that they are against accurate data. They likely will not reply that they were unaware of Michael Mann’s secrecy. That makes them look less informed than I am. However, if they do reply that they were not aware of that I will then say, “Yeah, it’s crazy, the guy has a PhD and claims to be a concerned scientist, but even when brought into court he keeps using legal delays to avoid having to release his data. The world could really benefit from seeing it. I don’t understand why a scientist would do that.”
It’s kind of like Peter Falk in the old Columbo show. If you remember, Columbo always flattered his targets. You use words that keep them thinking you are on their side of the argument and you use sincere questions, pretending that you really want their superior knowledge on the subject, to force them to learn or accept facts that make their belief untenable.
The result will rarely be that you get them to change their politics, but what you will often do is get them to start understanding that many things the culture is telling them are political are not political and they should be more skeptical. You won’t make them love Republicans but you can make them dislike Democrats.
Marco Rubio’s letter to the baseball commissioner regarding his pulling the All Star game from Georgia is a good example. Rubio asked him questions and he uses very specific data elements; “Since you are worried about voting and voter access will you also be punishing China and Cuba?” “Since you are leading the MLB to make a stand and leave Georgia you must also be cancelling your membership to the Augusta National Golf Club…” Of course Rubio is being intentionally adversarial, his letter is intended for a national audience, but the questions and specifics are similar tactics.
Alinsky 101: make them live up to their own beliefs.
One other thing:
Of course showing this video to young, white adults and teens will get them thinking! When I have done it I don’t even let them know it’s political and open by asking for their input. I’m seeking them out for their knowledge. “Hey, I’d love to know what you think of this video.” Then I show the video.
How could they possibly respond? If, when it’s over I am open and sincere and simply wait for them to speak, and allow them to speak, they have to cede many of Horowitz’ points. Now if I say, “Look at these idiot College students and how dumb/racist they are!” Then show the video… Well, I’ve got them on the defensive; of course they are going to defend team College student. But if I show it sincerely, sincerely soliciting their thoughts; there’s a great opportunity for a well-reasoned conversation.
}}} Many of them would begin to open their eyes and see their own racism.
I very much doubt it. To admit their soft bigotry of low expectations is to ack a serious and massive attack on their personal identity.
One of two things would happen:
a — they would tap dance, hem, haw, and bloviate until they got away from you, never admitting to the racism inherent in their viewpoints.
b — they would ack it “for the moment” and then as soon as they were away, would tap dance, hem, haw, and bloviate to themselves in order to rationalize why they were not racists or bigots.
In both cases, the Liberal Midnight Reset Button® would come into play, and the entire discussion would be utterly forgotten, “never happened”, within 48 hours.
}}} “I don’t even support heterosexual marriage legislation. Why do we want to give the government jurisdiction over who consenting adults can associate with?”
I’ve always been amused by this argument.
The problem with it is that it ignores there are two different aspects to marriage.
The contractual aspect and the emotional aspect
Governments have zero business being involved in the emotional, associational aspect of marriage.
But contract enforcement and resolution, this is prima facie one of the most basic, elemental reasons for government to exist.
So, yes, there is, very much, a good reason why governments are involved in the marriage process.
And yes, governments do, in fact, have some power to reject or deny certain types of contractual arrangements. You cannot, for example, sell yourself into slavery, even by choice. And, while the argument is debatable, you also can’t make contracts which sell portions of your body, including an unborn child, which is why you can contract for a woman to be a surrogate, she can renege on it after the child is born.
OBloodyHell @12:17pm,
I don’t go into the conversations with a political focus and they do not become adversarial and yes, when I use my tactics people have nuanced discussions with me. I understand what you write about the midnight reset, but that is a political focus. I don’t go into it with the attitude of trying to get people to leave or join a political party. I go into it with getting people to become skeptical about people trying to impose on their liberty(ies).
Look, you, yourself admit they are Liberal, or at least claim they are. Talk to them as an advocate; a fan of liberal ideas. I assume you are. I know I am. I want my fellow Americans to be free. How does the policy they are complaining about limit freedoms? Shift the conversation to that aspect and do it in a sincere question. Nobody wants to have a conversation with a hyper-politically focused person robotically spitting out data. The facts are on our side. We know that, but most people aren’t swayed by facts. You already know your opponent isn’t, otherwise he or she wouldn’t be spewing Leftist nonsense. Use emotional pleas to freedom, independence and liberty to help them to start thinking more skeptically and deeply.
The LMRB….
LOLZ. Geoffrey beat me to it. 😀
=====
}}} It’s a bit of a sleight of hand. We’re no longer talking about politics, we’re talking about theater and censorship, which is a much less boring topic.
Another problem with such discussions is venue.
Many years ago, I was on J. Michael Straczynski’s FB group.
This was some months after an anti-abortion bill was being passed in Texas, which brought out what was, (at the time) max crazies. There is, for example footage of some Christians singing Amazing Grace, while in the background, you had liberal assholes chanting “Hail Satan”. In addition, and most particularly, there were liberals attempting to bring feces and urine in baggies into the public gallery, so they could hurl it down on the legislators. They were caught, and arrested… which led to the topic here:
They did not KEEP the evidence (the baggies of urine and feces), thus, the cases were dropped for lack of evidence. Not surprising, and not all that big a deal… but JMS was crowing about how it meant that it was all made up, that they were “innocent until proven guilty”, etc., etc.
After a number of back and forths over the matter, I took a different tack (I’m paraphrasing, but this is the gist of it):
“So, innocent until proven guilty is your position?”
“Yes”
“So, at those liberal Hollywood parties, when the subject of George Zimmerman comes up, you maintain his innocence to your liberal cohorts?” (This was between the event and the trial).
Needless to say, his next move was banning me. No surprise, but with that, I lost all respect for him as a person.
If/when you prove their (any liberal’s) hypocrisy, you find they act, if at all possible, to bury/censor it**. Because liberals operate by a much more childish and primitive shame culture, not a modern, mature guilt culture.
I noted this about 12-odd years ago, after the erstwhile blogger, Dr. Sanity, discussed them (she’s still around, she just does not blog any more)
I really DO recommend reading that — it’s a very well-written summary for the layman about a basic psychological component. And you might click on some of the other articles linked therein, Dr. Sanity was excellent at that.
A bit later, I noted the similarities (this is a re-call from 2009, when I raised it) to Dem behavior, and called it to her attention. She found the notion interesting and wrote about it):
===== ** Another example — I had a long, drawn out discussion with a modern “feminist” on FB. She, and another woman, were both arguing with me about the patriarchy, etc. After I scored a number of points, she got pissed and insulted me with a clear imputation that I was gay, and in the context of her insult it was clear that that was an insulting comment to HER. It was, in current parlance, VERY homophobic.
I immediately saw what she’d done, the other woman involved took mild note, but I immediately began laughing at her, taunting her with “Ho-Mo-PHOBE!! Ho-Mo-PHOBE!!”. She tried to backpedal, and claim she didn’t mean it that way, but there was no other interpretation — she slunk off, utterly defeated.
Now, this wasn’t on HER THREAD, so she had no direct control over it.
BUT, strangely enough, though there were only three people involved in it, within 8 hours (it was late at night, so no, it would not have likely been seen by anyone else) it was black holed by FB, for “being against community standards”.
“Someone” had reported it.
Signs are, she reported **herself** to FB, in order to get the comments removed, to hide her shame.
OBloodyHell @12:34pm,
I have had this discussion so often that I know this is likely a waste of time, but yes, of course there is a contractual component to marriage, and there needs to be, and political society has jurisdiction over that. But can I not also buy a house, car, boat, all of the above with a male friend? Two male friends? A male friend, his wife and one of their adult children?
Property is almost always a subset of marriage, but it’s also the subset of a lot of other things; like business partnerships or fraternal organizations. The transitive property does not apply here. Just because marriages often involve property ownership (or powers of attorney, or medical decisions) and government has oversight of contracts involving property ownership, powers of attorney and medical decisions that DOES NOT mean that government therefore should have oversight of marriage.
Here’s where the person next takes the discussion (and where Cicero took it):
“But marriage is important to government from a child welfare and tax component, therefore governments have reason to promote the birth and care of children, therefore governments should be involved with marriage and marriage should only be heterosexual.”
So then a heterosexual couple should be required to sign a government form agreeing to attempt to have and raise children? Elderly, heterosexual couples beyond childbearing years should not be allowed to marry? Infertile, heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry? Two, spinster Aunts who have no desire for a sexual relationship should not allow to buy a home together, or have powers of attorney over one another?
My jurisdiction requires contracts be signed in order for my wife and I to own property commonly and to have legal decision rights over one another’s health care. So she and I went to a courthouse and filled out that paperwork. That joined us civilly. I could have also done that with my buddy, John. Our Church requires that her and I commit to a set of theocratic rules, including willingly accepting children, in order to be married. So she and I went to a cathedral, took a vow in front of God and our families and friends and filled out the paperwork.
Two different things to her and I. I have no problem with my fellow citizens who are uninterested in the second element.
}}} I assume you are. I know I am. I want my fellow Americans to be free. How does the policy they are complaining about limit freedoms?
Classical Liberals vs. PostModern Liberals.
VERY different goals.
I am a fan of CL, PML is, as I have noted many times, a social cancer. Not in the figurative sense. A literal meaning.
Unfortunately, CLs are now something under 5% of all so-called “liberals”, as far as I can see.
}}} OBloodyHell @12:34pm,
I have had this discussion so often that I know this is likely a waste of time, but yes, of course there is a contractual component to marriage, and there needs to be, and political society has jurisdiction over that.
As long as you grasp this. It’s the only part of the discussion that really has any relevance.
While some churches might balk, you can get married in a freaking desert shack, without a license, if you want. You can get married in the middle of the night on a beach all by your lonesome (i.e., the two of you).
But for society to recognize it, you generally need a license, just because the license imposes societal obligations onto the union, which ties to those contractual ones.
There’s no reason whatsoever you can’t buy a house with someone else, or anything like that. But the specific social obligations which connect to “marriage” — THE PART OF IT THAT PLACES AN ONUS ON OTHERS — is what requires the license. Without the license, a hotel is not obligated to allow you to share a room (less significant than it used to be), a hospital is not obligated to allow you to be together during illness (less common than it used to be) and so forth.
YOU are no longer just making a social connection to your S.O — you are also demanding certain things from society with regards to it. Recognition of your special bond, and acquiescence to certain societal benefits which it behooves society to provide in order to encourage it.
I think almost all of the social obligations which happen BETWEEN the two of you can be done with contracts independent of the “marriage license”. The obligations facing OUTWARD are the ones you lose if society does not recognize it.
And that’s a much more complex matter than implied by your argument. Not the least of which being that it impinges on the civil rights of others, particularly regarding religious beliefs. Cake makers, for example. Florists, Churches, and even B&Bs…
I don’t doubt what you write happened, I believe it is a true account, but how do you square the conclusion you drew from that episode with this graph, https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx , or the fact that Trump did better with black and latino voters than Romney and even better in his second campaign, or the Blexit movement, or Trump actually winning his first election, or the ratings plunges of CNN, or, or, or?
If your point is that there are ignorant, close minded bullies in the world, then yes, I agree. But if your point is that they succeed at convincing people who are open minded and skeptical over the long term, then I disagree. People seeking the truth will find the truth and I do what I can to help them. People seeking lies will find lies.
Rufus T Firefly:
Regarding gay marriage and the fine arguments made for contracts between individuals an the state and covenants made between individuals and the Church, all well and good, except that once the first concession is made the goalposts shift from acceptance/tolerance to full support. The goal it seems is never just acceptance but full support of the most radical position. The left are not honest and accept no limitations. Their goal is compliance with whatever the standard is today.
Gay rights to trans rights to what’s next? The purpose is to exercise power and control in the name of “rights.”
Rufus T. Firefly:
If I’m remembering my law school lessons properly, law is often involved in things that reflect a view of what a society making those laws would like to promote and what it wants to discourage. In general, society is considered to have an interest in marriage and thus in making laws that protect parties (I mean the adults) and protect children. Who can get married, what they’re entitled to on dissolution of that marriage, those things are relevant to the law whether there are children or not. Of course, when there are children, that’s another matter the law tries to deal with, because society has a strong interest in their welfare.
All of this was traditionally regulated by the states (not the feds), which had fairly broad powers. But the Constitution and its amendments apply to the states as well, and states cannot violate the Constitution or its amendments. That’s why miscegenation laws are a big no-no. The question with gay marriage was not whether states can regulate it and allow it – of course they can, and did. It was whether they could ban it and whether that violated the Constitution (IMHO it does not violate it and the decision that it did was a liberal stretch). There were also cross-state concerns that were actually quite complex and I forget some of the details.
But those were the issues, not whether the government can or should regulate marriage. I understand that the latter is a libertarian cause – to get the state out of marriage. But those are the reasons the state is in the marriage business in the first place.
OBloodyHell @1:48pm,
Regarding CL and PML, I won’t argue your statistics, but if any of the PMLs claim to be open minded or interested in truth you can lead them towards CL. David Rubin is perhaps one of the most famous, pop culture examples of this (and it ties in nicely with neo’s Post theme). David is a gay, stand up comedian who set his sights on making money interviewing famous people on his podcast. Completely, politically left. But he likes money, so he’d have all sorts of people on his show. One day he had black, talk show host Larry Elder on. David casually mentioned something about “systemic racism,” assuming Larry would be on board, but Larry took him to school in one of the most embarrassing youtube interview moments in history. After the interview David’s team said we can’t post that. It will hurt the podcast and your brand. David said, post it as is. David is now one of the most reasoned advocates of free speech in popular culture. He was embarrassed as hell by what happened, but he also understand that (L)iberal means being open to all ideas. Larry’s listing of facts caused David to examine what he thought he knew and it eventually changed him. He know truly is a Liberal.
OBloodyHell @1:58pm,
Your argument breaks down at so many different levels I think I must be misunderstanding it. The hospital thing is covered by legal documents. I know this firsthand. The hotel thing, as you point out, is archaic and stupid.
I assume you know any devout practitioner of LDS does not view my wife and I as married; regardless of what paperwork we have signed with our community or church. Our union is not sealed in a Mormon tabernacle so we are not wed, in their eyes. Fine with me and I don’t want my city, county, state or nation to force them to view it differently. Pretty much the same for devout Muslims and their view of our heretical union.
I do not understand your point about impinging on florists and bakers. It was quite awhile ago, but when we contracted with one of each for our wedding ceremony I am quite confident neither asked for us to produce a civic license, or sign paperwork that we promised to wed and only eat the cake after properly taking vows. I’m 99.9999% sure I could walk to the bakery at the bottom of the hill, write them a check, and get a wedding cake for my own, personal consumption.
Civic is civic. Religious is religious. I like religious marriage and highly recommend it, but I don’t want to live in a nation that mandates it. And I’m glad I live in a nation that allows me to be my adult, unwed sister’s legal representative should she be incapacitated.
om @2:03pm,
I am not bolding this as an attack on your comment. I am bolding it because this is the fundamental, critical point that so many fail to see in this debate*.
THE GOAL POSTS CANNOT MOVE IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION OVER IT!
Look at it this way. My wife and I paid a lot of money to send our kids to religious grammar and secondary schools. Those schools do not allow kids of different sexes to share bathrooms or locker rooms. Those schools do not allow kids of different sexes to compete against one another in sports.
But my neighbors, who decided to give the government jurisdiction and authority over their kids’ schools?
If we insist that the government has jurisdiction over marriage, beyond societal, contractual needs, then it is not a question of if, but solely a matter of when; some government bureaucrat backed by an armed policeman, shutters the doors of my church until my parish performs wedding ceremonies for same sex couples.
*Glenn Beck used to make the same arguments you all are making, and after he saw the results of the Supreme Court’s involvement he has become a huge proponent of my cause; getting government out of ALL marriage. It is a darned shame more people didn’t see this coming before the Supreme Court intervened with yet another penumbra of an emanation.
neo @2:04pm,
The government, state or federal, is not “in the marriage business” in my case, and in the views of the majority of your fellow citizens. My wife and I did not consider ourselves married until a Catholic Priest pronounced us man and wife. Full stop. End of sentence. And I have a cousin who considered herself married when her and her husband stomped on a glass in front of a Rabbi. And I have a very close friends who considered themselves married when they walked to City Hall and signed a piece of paper after living together for over 5 years.
What percentage of kids are born out of wedlock in the U.S.? 40% Do those kids lack any of the rights my kids, born after my wife and I wed, did/do?
If my state makes a law that brown haired men cohabitating with red haired women are no longer considered “married” my wife and I wouldn’t give it a second thought. Our religion has authority over our marriage. And I also, sincerely, have no issue with anyone who views marriage differently than my religion does.
They will make the government part of the process. They have no intention of leaving others alone. They will come for your kid’s school bathrooms too. It’s a feature not a bug. Unfortunately government and laws are the means that are used to restrain behavior that is not socially acceptable.
Regarding rights of children, see case law for inheritance or transfer of property, not my monkeys or my circus.
neo,
You did a good job of breaking down the legal issue and how the Supreme Court found its way in, but what if your state passes a new law that the state no longer has any jurisdiction, interest or legal oversight of unions between adults of the legal age of reason?
Your state would still oversee parental rights, powers of attorney, property ownership, etc., but no longer anything to do with unions beyond those things. What would happen? Would the sky fall? Would anything change?
And if your state did that how could the Supreme Court force any church to oversee non-heterosexual unions? It’s no longer something afforded by the state, so the federal government cannot step in under the guise of a denial of rights.
If you don’t want the camel in your tent don’t let the camel’s nose in.
om, “They will make the government part of the process.”
Yes, they will try, but why should I make their cause a fait accompli by ceding them jurisdiction? The words “marriage/married” should not be on any government document. I would gladly back an amendment in my state to eliminate it. “Filing jointly?” Sure. “Owned in common?” Sure. Married? No.
The Left is showing us how important language is. Don’t cede them the word. If you do, they can define it. If you do not, they cannot.
Rufus T. Firefly;
I don’t know what the effect would be, and I don’t think anyone knows.
My gut feeling is that there would be more family chaos and that it would impact negatively on society, but that’s just a gut feeling and I could be very wrong.
But I also am pretty sure (again, my memory of legal stuff is vague, but this is what I think is correct) states would not be allowed to pass laws that prohibited the state from entering into a certain class of laws so broadly, in areas that traditionally states have been allowed to regulate, and that don’t violate the Constitution or its amendments. It might take a state constitutional amendment to do so, and even then I’m not sure it would pass muster in the courts. I’m not at all sure a state legislature would be allowed to tie down future state legislatures so broadly and sweepingly.
Rufus T Firefly:
That horse (marriage/married) left the barn a long time ago, moot, latches, etc. Now it is on to bathrooms and gender; anyone can have any gender they want on any day or any hour, because consensus and liberty. It’s a process of societal destruction, just my opinion.
Rufus T. Firefly:
And the state (at the local level of states, for the most part) is indeed in the marriage business, just as it’s in the crime business and many other businesses – to encourage certain behavior and to prohibit other behaviors, supposedly for the benefit of society. That’s what a lot of law is about. I have never seen anything that indicates the majority of people think the state should have NO say in marriage; it’s long been my impression that the disagreement is about how much say and exactly what type of say.
My favorite course in law school was about the philosophy of law and the purpose of legal systems. This comes under that heading, I believe. I’m not saying I’m an expert, and of course things may have changed since then as well. But I find the topic of great interest.
I’m not sure but in Texas if you marry in the church you still have to get a license from the county court house. Maybe I’m wrong but I think we did. It’s been 30 years.
jack,
Yes. Of course. Same thing everywhere, except some religious leaders are also certified as “justices o’ the peace.” And the reason is: drumroll……….
Because they are two, different things. The state needs to know who I am sharing property with and giving legal authority over decisions in my life. My church wants to impose its tenets on me, and my spouse. Just as my church cannot legally force my wife and I to raise our kids in the faith; my state cannot threaten my wife and me with excommunication should we fail to abstain from eating meat on some Friday, during Lent.
neo,
The state should be in the crime business to protect the citizenry.
This is a HUGE difference in the system of government our founders gave us. We individuals are sovereign and the federal government is limited to 14, explicit powers. States are free to create laws not covered by those powers, but the overarching premise should be adhered to: Individuals are sovereign and are born with rights.
What concern should it have regarding romance? If you start listing concrete points they are all easily shot down*.
1. neo, I forgot that your career involved family counseling(?) Regardless of the details, this is an area you are very well versed in.
2. I personally believe marriage means; one woman and one man coming together to form a family. But I personally believe a lot of things that would also be dangerous to give the government control to enforce or mandate. I believe society would be greatly improved if all adult men and women dressed presentably when out in public. I also do not want to have Talibani with whips thrashing grown men wearing shorts in public places, or grown women wearing jeans that look like a tiger paw shredded them.
*The state should regulate marriage to protect children. O.K., what if biological parents are killed in a plane crash. Can the childrens’ two, spinster Aunts care for the children? How about two, very close family friends who are female and unrelated? Should we require one or both of those two women to marry a male in order to be foster parents? If we allow them to live together and raise the children should we make them sign a document, punishable with imprisonment, should the two women ever embrace, or kiss, or?
Just stop and think about the system of government our founding fathers gave us, and the brilliant philosophy behind it, and then think about what happens when you, or anyone else, attempt to force pet issues into the framework. Would real Americans have a system that requires them to petition a government functionary for permission to live and breed with another free, American citizen? “Oh please, Mr./Ms. county clerk. Please agree that my fiance and I can live with one another and be viewed as worthy in your benevolent eyes and the state for which you are overseer.”
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
I saw this when it came out (18 months ago?).
It is brilliant because it is absolutely correct and it shows how to combat the absurdity engulfing us.
Neo and many of the commenters have written extensively about Cloward & Piven, Saul Alinsky and the strategies employed by Leftists to silence debate. Their ideas are provably wrong and wilt when exposed to truth so they have become experts at halting discussion in order to train people to not examine their statements.
We have to play the race card before they do.
We have to play the misogyny card before they do.
We have to play the homophobia/transphobia/islamophobia, etc. cards before they do.
As shown in this video, when the topic of voting rights comes up ask the speaker why he or she believes black people are incapable of getting proper IDs? Does the speaker believe black people are less intelligent than other races?
When the topic of informed abortion laws comes up ask the speaker why he or she believes women are incapable of making the best decision for their own health when provided evidence and information? Does the speaker believe women are too emotional or dim to understand medical data?
And on and on. It’s tedious. It’s frustrating. But we have to do it. We actually have the facts and science and truth on our side. State the truth. Openly. And do not hesitate to begin the discussion by stating what they are if they believe what they believe they believe. They are racist. They are misogynist. They are imperialists.
They want to keep the truth cloaked in darkness and due to our indolence they have become very skilled at it. But, also due to our indolence, they have become very complacent. Expose them. Expose the truth. Be polite. But be honest.
Regarding my comment, and Ami Horowitz’ video; what do you think would happen if he went back to the folks he interviewed in the first half and showed them the second half? Many of them would begin to open their eyes and see their own racism. We have to take the scales off their eyes by explicitly calling them out. It can be briefly uncomfortable, but when you get adept at it the other person is the one who becomes uncomfortable relatively quickly.
A subset of the same technique I often deploy. When someone opens a conversation with me, “I can’t believe what the racist/sexist/whateverist Trump/Republicans/Ron DeSantis… is doing know with his/her latest proposal/policy/tweet…”
I’ll calmly and succinctly reply, “I don’t think you’ve read the policy.” Or, I don’t think you understand the policy/tweet/proposal…”
First, it shocks them. They are so used to agreement or acquiescence they aren’t typically prepared for intelligent discussion. Second, it immediately puts them on the defensive. They have to explain what they mean. The more words they use the more openings you have to pick apart their words for elements of racism/misogyny and general illiberalism.
Right now, accusation of racism are a tool for a small group of mostly white people to take power over a larger group of mostly white people.
To do this, they are playing motte-and-bailey games with “racism” defined as a grave moral failure to treat individuals justly, and “racism” defined as any system generating undesirable and disparate impacts by demographic.
No one wants to be in the first category of “racist” so the trick is to get people to buy into changes that affect the systems in the second definition (voting, etc).
The video shown above will not work on this group who know perfectly well what they are doing. If it gets widespread enough Vox will do another explainer on what “racism” is really and this video “misunderstands”…
We’re not dealing with people who discuss issues in good faith here.
Rufus T. Firefly:
Perhaps a few of them would do what you describe. But I think very very few. It’s not that easy to change people’s minds; they have too much invested in believing what they believe. I think it far more likely that they would say some variant of this: “Well, of course some black people are perfectly able to get ID. The people you interviewed were clearly that type of person – fairly aware, educated, well-functioning. But there are also large numbers of black people who are not like that, a higher percentage than in other groups, and they would have trouble getting IDs. This failure is not their fault, of course. It is due to the failure of our white supremacist culture to quit being racist.”
Frederick and neo,
I am careful when using the techniques I outline (for example I do not use them with someone raving madly), but they have pretty much always worked for me. I don’t mean to imply I instantly changed anyone’s mind or voting patterns, but the tone of the conversation almost immediately changes to one of discussion and give and take. And in future conversations the other party would always begin in a more nuanced manner.
Here’s an example of one of the times it was almost instantly successful in getting the speaker to examine his statement. After I stated my comeback it was almost like a scene in a movie where a needle goes across a record, making a screeching noise.
During the Obama/Romney race a young man who was in Seminary studying to be a Priest made a statement, “I can’t believe there are Christians who would actually consider voting for Mitt Romney. He wants to decrease taxes on the wealthy.”
I replied, “Is forcing a rich man to give of his largesse unwillingly, through the threat of an armed tax collector arresting him and putting him in prison likely to change his heart to be more charitable? How does handing money to the poor help them develop the skills necessary to raise themselves from poverty? And, how does voting to force other people to do what you are not personally doing benefit you?” He stood and silently stared. After a few, uncomfortable minutes of silence I brought up another subject and we had a nice conversation. When I next saw him, several months later, we had another long conversation about many things but I could tell he had been reading and studying Conservative viewpoints.
I find I have the most luck with this with younger people. I have gotten many middle-aged and older people to acquiesce to points I make, but I doubt they go off and examine new sources, etc. Most old people are not willing to invest time to learn new things. But almost always with young people I find they are willing to give a little ground. They see that I’m quick on my feet and know the subject matter better than they do.
Another thing that I find works well with young people is I will restate their view more cogently. Make their argument for them, but better than they are. “Oh, you want women to get more pay? Congress made equal pay for equal work the law of the land in 1963, and statistics show academic and career freedom correlate directly with career choices; the more free women are to choose in society the less likely they are to choose careers in Science, Engineering or executive management in business. So a more effective way to achieve your goal is to advocate for higher pay in women dominated fields, like childcare and elementary education.”
Human nature. First, they instantly see you know more about the subject than they do, and that there are some important things that have been kept from them. No one wants to look like an idiot, so they won’t argue your points; that there is a Federal law mandating equal pay or that women in free societies are less likely to choose STEM and business executive careers. With no further debate you have gotten them to cede two, very important pieces of the puzzle. Then, there is a chance they will go away a bit mad that their sources of information have kept important pieces of the puzzle from them.
I agree, you will rarely if ever get immediate change. But the more it happens the more likely folks are to consider new perspectives. When Rush Limbaugh passed away we were flooded with such stories. Variations on, “I turned on the radio to listen to this idiot, blowhard spout nonsense, but some of the things he said caused me to think a bit …”
I will also add, when it first came out I showed Ami Horowitz’ video to several, different young people and it definitely got them to rethink their views. The second half is very powerful. Young, “white” people in our society are trained to recoil from most any negative imposition someone viewed as “black” may “feel.” Watching real, live, “black” people in Harlem get angry with statements made by “whites…” The young people I showed it to did not want to identify with the “privileged” “whites” in the video the instant it was shown their views were not in favor with “blacks*.”
*I do not put “white” and “black” in quotes because I do not believe in skin tones, genetics or ethnicity. I do. I just think it’s absurd that in 2021 we are still segregating people into such categories.
Rufus T. Firefly:
I agree that one must pick and choose who to discuss things with, and that it’s best to not deal with those who are very very very partisan.
The problem I’ve encountered is that unless I know the person well, it’s not easy to tell who is very extreme on the subject. With those I know better, I’ve often engaged with people with whom I have reasonable conversations and make good points in the moment. But I find that, over time, it has zero effect on their politics. They don’t seem to want to change, no matter how many times the challenge happens.
And it doesn’t matter at all that they might realize I know more about a certain subject. In my experience, that tends to make people angry – sometimes even those who until then were politely discussing matters. It may be because people don’t expect it from a woman and they feel extra humiliated by that (in that case, the “people” I’m talking to tend to be men). Or, if I’m talking to a woman, sometimes the woman says I “argue like a lawyer” which is somehow considered to be having an unfair advantage.
At any rate, it does not seem to have engendered change in anyone. However, the only young people I’ve ever talked to about these things are very very partisan and don’t seem open to it at all, nor do I have the opportunity to talk to young people very often.
I will also add I’ve had success with these tactics with young gays and bi-sexuals. They are very sensitive to authoritarianism. And most all the Left’s policies are authoritarian. It’s easy to simply rephrase what they are advocating for as a policy limiting choice and freedom. Gay marriage was an easy one. When asked by gays if I supported gay marriage legislation. I’d reply:
“I don’t even support heterosexual marriage legislation. Why do we want to give the government jurisdiction over who consenting adults can associate with?”
You could just about see smoke coming from their overtaxed neural circuitry as competing, incongruent synapses fired. Instead of answering their question I asked them why they wanted the government to be involved with their sex lives?
Rufus T. Firefly:
That’s interesting that some young people really had some changes of opinion when you showed them the video.
The problem is that the black people interviewed in Harlem are not the black people that voter ID would keep from the polls.
Black people who are afraid of the police and afraid of arrest, for crimes they actually did commit or for ones that they worry that they will be framed for, will be hesitant to vote in person (with or without an ID requirement) and will be hesitant to show an ID to get an absentee ballot. It stands to reason that these people also wouldn’t agree to do a television interview with a white guy on the street.
Without voter ID laws, the Democrats can easily keep those votes in play by having someone else vote under their names and/or get absentee ballots under their names. With voter ID, this gets a lot more difficult.
Rufus T. Firefly
Recall what Kinky Friedman said about gay marriage:
Yeah, I really don’t buy the racist argument, but you know who does really struggle with IDs?
The homeless.
Everything they have gets stolen at random intervals.
…and you can either make it easy to get duplicate IDs without a bunch of proof, making the IDs mostly useless, or you can make it almost impossible for them to get IDs.
I can’t say I have any idea how to address that one, or why the left doesn’t beat us up with that real issue instead of the fake race-based one.
Tim:
Many states make IDs easy to get and even make it possible to get free ones.
Racism is the argument that people prefer and also the one the courts prefer. Not all inequalities are equally persuasive legally.
I recently read Idiot Wind, by Peter Kaldheim. In the ’80s he fled NYC due to a drug dealing debt he couldn’t honor. Somewhere along the way he lost his ID. When he finally settled down in Portland as one of the homeless, it wasn’t difficult to get an ID. It just took a number of steps before he had a state-issued ID.
He ended up salvaging his life, working as a high-end chef. Not precisely where he thought he’d end up with his degree from Dartmouth, but definitely a step up from being homeless. Getting off cocaine helped.
“I don’t even support heterosexual marriage legislation. Why do we want to give the government jurisdiction over who consenting adults can associate with?”
Rufus…that’s been my go-to for a number of years. I usually follow that up with, “At most, gov’t may have a compelling interest in ‘minimum age’ requirements for marriage.”
But beyond that…if the gov’t wants all the info for tracking, taxing, & genealogical tracing of family trees, then they can do all that in a county clerk’s office on their time. And I’m no big fan of that either.
Once upon a time, I was doing lunch with a friend of mine. The subject of global warming came up (it was not yet “climate change” back then). We had our back-and-forth, a bit extended, I might say. I made my points and refuted many of his, and vice versa. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
So what’s my point? Stay tuned . . .
A few weeks after that lunch, we had another conversation (I’m pretty sure it was another lunch, but not important). The subject of global warming came up. Jim made one of his points, and I referred back to that first conversation. “Hey, Jim, don’t you remember when we discussed this before, and I pointed out (such-and-such)?” Not so much that I was indisputably right [but of course, I was (grin)], but really (I was feeling), do we have to go over the same old ground with the same old point-counterpoint again?
And now, the point you’ve all been waiting for . . .
Jim had no memory of the earlier conversation. “Don’t you remember when you said this and I said that?” Blank. NO RECOLLECTION. It was as though the first conversation had not taken place. For Jim, it had not.
At least I can be gratified that Rufus (2:29 pm, 3:32 pm) has had success. For M J R, limited success, but only when they listen. How often is that, I’m tempted to wonder. Of course, if there *is* limited success, will the other guy admit it? “A mind is a difficult thing to admit to.”
Naaah, doesn’t quite work . . .
“I don’t even support heterosexual marriage legislation. Why do we want to give the government jurisdiction over who consenting adults can associate with?”
The nicest thing I can say about that remark is that it is libertarian.
“Consenting adults” engaged in sexual affairs other than marriage ( and the propagation of children) eventually lead to societal collapse and destruction.
I regard most libertarians as shallow-minded, remarkably uninformed people, and give thanks they remain a small minority. “If it feels good, and harms nobody else, it’s OK” is their credo. That is a house built on sand, not rock. Clearly they have not read the Torah or the Bible, or Aristotle, Plato or any of the other great thinkers that have graced humanity thru the ages.
Neo: “It doesn’t matter at all that they might realize I know more about a certain subject. In my experience, that tends to make people angry – sometimes even those who until then were politely discussing matters.”
This.
And, superficially off-topic, I won’t forget the wave of cognitive dissonance that washed over a close friend’s face when I mentioned five years ago that the “Hands up — don’t shoot” narrative about Michael Brown is verifiably false. She had never heard such a thing, and she has no memory today of that conversation.
Cicero,
You are putting words in my mouth (err, keyboard). I did not say anything was “OK,” or not “OK.” I said the government should not be involved with whom grown adults fall in love with. My wife and I were married by our Church. Our Church has a lot of rules on the subject and some are excommunicated from my Church for violating those rules.
Render unto Caesar.
I didn’t make this point in my prior comments, but there is an additional component to my approach. As Margaret Thatcher said, “The facts of life are Conservative.” And someone else (Churchill?) said, “Every one is Conservative about what matters to them.”
I use that when I reply to their attacks by posing questions to them. In the case of the Seminarian I knew his ballywick was people’s souls. In the case of the non-hetero lifestyle debaters I know they are very concerned about personal freedom. Most all young women believe they are opressed by a patriarchy. Question them about the loss of personal agency in wishing to grant Congressmen (say it with derision and stress the “men” syllable”) power over their choices when they bring up some policy issue. Environmentalists? I start by stating that I too am concerned about greenhouse gases and ask if they agree that we should manage our old growth forests better and use more nuclear energy?
As M J R points out, we know all their talking points. They are shoved down our throats from all directions. So make it clear you are well versed on the topic and immediately respond with a question that implicates their view while simultaneously showing their view violates a principle that is also very important to them. When I do it I typically do it very sincerely (unless it’s a good friend, or my children); as if I truly am wrestling with the issue myself and am seeking their wisdom.
I have been in MollyG’s shoes regarding ignorance of Michael Brown. The way I brought up the subject is; “What do you think of the McIlhenny’s having trouble staging their play of the direct reading of the trial transcripts because of theaters concerned about the truth of the ‘hands up don’t shoot’ lie being proven wrong in the trial?”
It’s a bit of a sleight of hand. We’re no longer talking about politics, we’re talking about theater and censorship, which is a much less boring topic. And, I’m giving the other party a chance to save face. When I’ve had that exact conversation the other person always replies that they have not hear of the play. They never admit they do not know “hands up don’t shoot” was proven wrong. So as we then start to discuss the play it’s a foregone component of the ensuing conversation that it is a lie.
@MJR:Jim had no memory of the earlier conversation. “Don’t you remember when you said this and I said that?” Blank. NO RECOLLECTION. It was as though the first conversation had not taken place. For Jim, it had not.
“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”
There’s another figure, one it would be folly to quote by name, who discussed his experience dealing with strategic stupidity among his political opponents in a famous book.
@Rufus:
Because any community, any society, requires governance in some form, and thus government has a say in something whether as fundamental or as bizarre as marriage, “love”, or sexual relationships of various flavors with their various undesired sequelae.
Rule by “Caesars” must be wise and virtuous (Aristotle again) or its society will decay and crumble, as we see that occurring all around us now. Aristotle’s best form of government was by an aristocracy (educated and dutiful), his worst was tyranny (rule by fear), but democracy (mob rule) ranked near his bottom level. He also despised oligarchs (money and power grubbers).
What we have here today is a democracy run by oligarchs.
Happy days!
Frederick (7:00 pm), I am familiar with the author of whom you speak. Out of deference to you, I won’t name the name, either. But . . . why??
Why “would [it] be folly” to name the name? Are you in a position to respond without giving the name away?
MJR,
The liberal forgetfulness to which you referred is a quite common phenomenon. Years ago, commenter O’Bloody Hell identified it and has since trademark’d it as “The Liberal Midnight Reset Button”
Both Rufus and G. B. have, in effect, described returning a serve.
I’ve never gotten that far. Early in the convo, the lib insists, heatedly, on the validity of some premise which is absolutely false.
If, for example, I bring up reports that NOAA “adjusted” temps in the Thirties downward so as to make current temps seem more dramatic, the lib will say, stoutly, that they never heard of it and won’t hear of it.
GB & MJR…I see it in their eye almost immediately…it’s a faraway gaze that tells me no matter what info I input…it’s there only transitorily.
I have a dear friend who’s said more times than I can count “Trump’s divisive.” (Also takes climate change as seriously as I take the Gospel…another story) But I’m 2 decades older & know more US history & have demonstrated from the written record of the left doing the actual dividing…& I get that “look” & a week later…”Trump’s divisive.”
That liberal “reset” button often doesn’t with ’til midnight.
Oh & yeah…racism exists in American alright…but usually it’s found among white leftists & especially those “closed American minds” of the college student leftist.
@MJR:Why “would [it] be folly” to name the name? Are you in a position to respond without giving the name away?
There’s too much guilt by association going around. Not everyone here is very anonymous, and not everyone here is independently wealthy and/or retired. Some people here still have to be able to move among the woke in order to make a living.
And there always algorithms looking for key words.
And there’s always the stupid, willful or otherwise, who will not make the “use/mention” distinction or the “quote/approve” distinction.
Frederick (8:07 pm): Check.
“Will the real racists please stand up?”
They are starting to at least raise their hands.
https://pjmedia.com/culture/bryan-preston/2021/04/05/breaking-mlb-moves-this-summers-all-star-game-from-atlanta-to-one-of-the-whitest-cities-in-america-n1437635
The pushback on this round of virtue-signaling has been intense; I pretty much picked this post at random. It doesn’t mention the quandary, noted in other articles, of the difficulty in picking a Blue state that didn’t have more restrictive laws than Georgia enacted.
Will we reach a tipping point of revulsion that finally starts a conservative action cascade?
Add in the outrage against the 60 Minutes hit piece (not that those are anything new at CBS), including from Florida Democrats, and the Left may have finally jumped the shark.
M J R, Molly G, Geoffrey: on the liberal midnight reset button.
Granted that the experiencing of said button in action is infuriating, the nefarious political context may only be incidental in some cases.
I can have a long talk with AesopSpouse about our plans for the week, but the next day it is as if the conversation has never happened; and this has been so for decades.
Sometimes it’s just the way people are.
There are certainly people that are so in love with their own opinions there is no point trying to have a nuanced discussion with them, but I assure you my approach will work with more people than many of you imagine. Again, I am not stating you will change any one’s mind in the moment, but you can get a lot of people to think, and to start thinking differently. Most people aren’t that interested in politics. Most everyone is very interested in her or himself. And most everyone has one or two other things that are very important to them; sports, television, movies, music, religious tenets, the law, engineering, physics, business…
As I wrote earlier, non-Leftists are typically fairly well versed in all sides of an issue because the culture is permeated with the Leftist view. That’s your first advantage. You know more about the topic than they do.
Next; do not be confrontational. Take it away from politics. You do not want them to know you are actually raising a political point and you do not want them to know you are disagreeing with them. Many people get instantly defensive at the first sign of any disagreement. At that point they shut down. Use collaborative terms to avoid the sense of confrontation. “I know how important such and such is to you, that’s why I imagine you to are very concerned about such and such…”
Third, focus on one of those non-political things you know is important to them. If it’s religion, bring up a religious element. If it’s women’s rights, bring up a women’s rights element. If it’s sports, bring up a sports element. If it’s science, bring up a science element. Make it about them and what’s important to them.
Finally, respond with a question. Don’t answer theirs, and for goodness sakes don’t answer theirs in the negative.
Example with M J R’s global warming lunch. If the topic comes up reply, “Yes the climate is one of the most important factors for maintaining life on Earth and human health. It’s critical we have accurate data so we can gauge what’s really going on and how well mitigation effects are working. I’m sure you are as mad as I am that Michael Mann refuses to release the data he used to construct the hockey stick model the UN and IPCC have used to form policy.”
It’s a fairly simple reply but a lot is going on there. First, there is a lot of agreement there. It is not adversarial. Second, there is some building there. Switching the topic to “accurate data.” Who can be against accurate data? Third, I’m introducing the subject of one of the cornerstones of climate change, Michael Mann, and forcing them to defend his flaws. Fourth, by mentioning Mann by name, “UN,” “IPCC” it sounds like I know a lot about the topic. So the person is going to be hesitant to try to “outscience” me in their reply. Fifth, I have asked them a direct question that they can only answer one way, and that answer cedes a key point to me. They cannot reply that they are against accurate data. They likely will not reply that they were unaware of Michael Mann’s secrecy. That makes them look less informed than I am. However, if they do reply that they were not aware of that I will then say, “Yeah, it’s crazy, the guy has a PhD and claims to be a concerned scientist, but even when brought into court he keeps using legal delays to avoid having to release his data. The world could really benefit from seeing it. I don’t understand why a scientist would do that.”
It’s kind of like Peter Falk in the old Columbo show. If you remember, Columbo always flattered his targets. You use words that keep them thinking you are on their side of the argument and you use sincere questions, pretending that you really want their superior knowledge on the subject, to force them to learn or accept facts that make their belief untenable.
The result will rarely be that you get them to change their politics, but what you will often do is get them to start understanding that many things the culture is telling them are political are not political and they should be more skeptical. You won’t make them love Republicans but you can make them dislike Democrats.
Marco Rubio’s letter to the baseball commissioner regarding his pulling the All Star game from Georgia is a good example. Rubio asked him questions and he uses very specific data elements; “Since you are worried about voting and voter access will you also be punishing China and Cuba?” “Since you are leading the MLB to make a stand and leave Georgia you must also be cancelling your membership to the Augusta National Golf Club…” Of course Rubio is being intentionally adversarial, his letter is intended for a national audience, but the questions and specifics are similar tactics.
Alinsky 101: make them live up to their own beliefs.
One other thing:
Of course showing this video to young, white adults and teens will get them thinking! When I have done it I don’t even let them know it’s political and open by asking for their input. I’m seeking them out for their knowledge. “Hey, I’d love to know what you think of this video.” Then I show the video.
How could they possibly respond? If, when it’s over I am open and sincere and simply wait for them to speak, and allow them to speak, they have to cede many of Horowitz’ points. Now if I say, “Look at these idiot College students and how dumb/racist they are!” Then show the video… Well, I’ve got them on the defensive; of course they are going to defend team College student. But if I show it sincerely, sincerely soliciting their thoughts; there’s a great opportunity for a well-reasoned conversation.
}}} Many of them would begin to open their eyes and see their own racism.
I very much doubt it. To admit their soft bigotry of low expectations is to ack a serious and massive attack on their personal identity.
One of two things would happen:
a — they would tap dance, hem, haw, and bloviate until they got away from you, never admitting to the racism inherent in their viewpoints.
b — they would ack it “for the moment” and then as soon as they were away, would tap dance, hem, haw, and bloviate to themselves in order to rationalize why they were not racists or bigots.
In both cases, the Liberal Midnight Reset Button® would come into play, and the entire discussion would be utterly forgotten, “never happened”, within 48 hours.
Those of you unfamiliar with the LMRB®, I’ve discussed it here @ neoneo, but here’s one of many places where I’ve defined it:
https://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2012/12/an-analogy-i-have-made-many-times.html?doing_wp_cron=1617725564.1084289550781250000000#comment-66464
}}} “I don’t even support heterosexual marriage legislation. Why do we want to give the government jurisdiction over who consenting adults can associate with?”
I’ve always been amused by this argument.
The problem with it is that it ignores there are two different aspects to marriage.
The contractual aspect and the emotional aspect
Governments have zero business being involved in the emotional, associational aspect of marriage.
But contract enforcement and resolution, this is prima facie one of the most basic, elemental reasons for government to exist.
So, yes, there is, very much, a good reason why governments are involved in the marriage process.
And yes, governments do, in fact, have some power to reject or deny certain types of contractual arrangements. You cannot, for example, sell yourself into slavery, even by choice. And, while the argument is debatable, you also can’t make contracts which sell portions of your body, including an unborn child, which is why you can contract for a woman to be a surrogate, she can renege on it after the child is born.
OBloodyHell @12:17pm,
I don’t go into the conversations with a political focus and they do not become adversarial and yes, when I use my tactics people have nuanced discussions with me. I understand what you write about the midnight reset, but that is a political focus. I don’t go into it with the attitude of trying to get people to leave or join a political party. I go into it with getting people to become skeptical about people trying to impose on their liberty(ies).
Look, you, yourself admit they are Liberal, or at least claim they are. Talk to them as an advocate; a fan of liberal ideas. I assume you are. I know I am. I want my fellow Americans to be free. How does the policy they are complaining about limit freedoms? Shift the conversation to that aspect and do it in a sincere question. Nobody wants to have a conversation with a hyper-politically focused person robotically spitting out data. The facts are on our side. We know that, but most people aren’t swayed by facts. You already know your opponent isn’t, otherwise he or she wouldn’t be spewing Leftist nonsense. Use emotional pleas to freedom, independence and liberty to help them to start thinking more skeptically and deeply.
The LMRB….
LOLZ. Geoffrey beat me to it. 😀
=====
}}} It’s a bit of a sleight of hand. We’re no longer talking about politics, we’re talking about theater and censorship, which is a much less boring topic.
Another problem with such discussions is venue.
Many years ago, I was on J. Michael Straczynski’s FB group.
This was some months after an anti-abortion bill was being passed in Texas, which brought out what was, (at the time) max crazies. There is, for example footage of some Christians singing Amazing Grace, while in the background, you had liberal assholes chanting “Hail Satan”. In addition, and most particularly, there were liberals attempting to bring feces and urine in baggies into the public gallery, so they could hurl it down on the legislators. They were caught, and arrested… which led to the topic here:
They did not KEEP the evidence (the baggies of urine and feces), thus, the cases were dropped for lack of evidence. Not surprising, and not all that big a deal… but JMS was crowing about how it meant that it was all made up, that they were “innocent until proven guilty”, etc., etc.
After a number of back and forths over the matter, I took a different tack (I’m paraphrasing, but this is the gist of it):
“So, innocent until proven guilty is your position?”
“Yes”
“So, at those liberal Hollywood parties, when the subject of George Zimmerman comes up, you maintain his innocence to your liberal cohorts?” (This was between the event and the trial).
Needless to say, his next move was banning me. No surprise, but with that, I lost all respect for him as a person.
If/when you prove their (any liberal’s) hypocrisy, you find they act, if at all possible, to bury/censor it**. Because liberals operate by a much more childish and primitive shame culture, not a modern, mature guilt culture.
I noted this about 12-odd years ago, after the erstwhile blogger, Dr. Sanity, discussed them (she’s still around, she just does not blog any more)
https://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/shame-arab-psyche-and-islam.html
I really DO recommend reading that — it’s a very well-written summary for the layman about a basic psychological component. And you might click on some of the other articles linked therein, Dr. Sanity was excellent at that.
A bit later, I noted the similarities (this is a re-call from 2009, when I raised it) to Dem behavior, and called it to her attention. She found the notion interesting and wrote about it):
https://drsanity.blogspot.com/2012/03/democrat-shame-culture.html
=====
** Another example — I had a long, drawn out discussion with a modern “feminist” on FB. She, and another woman, were both arguing with me about the patriarchy, etc. After I scored a number of points, she got pissed and insulted me with a clear imputation that I was gay, and in the context of her insult it was clear that that was an insulting comment to HER. It was, in current parlance, VERY homophobic.
I immediately saw what she’d done, the other woman involved took mild note, but I immediately began laughing at her, taunting her with “Ho-Mo-PHOBE!! Ho-Mo-PHOBE!!”. She tried to backpedal, and claim she didn’t mean it that way, but there was no other interpretation — she slunk off, utterly defeated.
Now, this wasn’t on HER THREAD, so she had no direct control over it.
BUT, strangely enough, though there were only three people involved in it, within 8 hours (it was late at night, so no, it would not have likely been seen by anyone else) it was black holed by FB, for “being against community standards”.
“Someone” had reported it.
Signs are, she reported **herself** to FB, in order to get the comments removed, to hide her shame.
OBloodyHell @12:34pm,
I have had this discussion so often that I know this is likely a waste of time, but yes, of course there is a contractual component to marriage, and there needs to be, and political society has jurisdiction over that. But can I not also buy a house, car, boat, all of the above with a male friend? Two male friends? A male friend, his wife and one of their adult children?
Property is almost always a subset of marriage, but it’s also the subset of a lot of other things; like business partnerships or fraternal organizations. The transitive property does not apply here. Just because marriages often involve property ownership (or powers of attorney, or medical decisions) and government has oversight of contracts involving property ownership, powers of attorney and medical decisions that DOES NOT mean that government therefore should have oversight of marriage.
Here’s where the person next takes the discussion (and where Cicero took it):
“But marriage is important to government from a child welfare and tax component, therefore governments have reason to promote the birth and care of children, therefore governments should be involved with marriage and marriage should only be heterosexual.”
So then a heterosexual couple should be required to sign a government form agreeing to attempt to have and raise children? Elderly, heterosexual couples beyond childbearing years should not be allowed to marry? Infertile, heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry? Two, spinster Aunts who have no desire for a sexual relationship should not allow to buy a home together, or have powers of attorney over one another?
My jurisdiction requires contracts be signed in order for my wife and I to own property commonly and to have legal decision rights over one another’s health care. So she and I went to a courthouse and filled out that paperwork. That joined us civilly. I could have also done that with my buddy, John. Our Church requires that her and I commit to a set of theocratic rules, including willingly accepting children, in order to be married. So she and I went to a cathedral, took a vow in front of God and our families and friends and filled out the paperwork.
Two different things to her and I. I have no problem with my fellow citizens who are uninterested in the second element.
}}} I assume you are. I know I am. I want my fellow Americans to be free. How does the policy they are complaining about limit freedoms?
Classical Liberals vs. PostModern Liberals.
VERY different goals.
I am a fan of CL, PML is, as I have noted many times, a social cancer. Not in the figurative sense. A literal meaning.
Unfortunately, CLs are now something under 5% of all so-called “liberals”, as far as I can see.
}}} OBloodyHell @12:34pm,
I have had this discussion so often that I know this is likely a waste of time, but yes, of course there is a contractual component to marriage, and there needs to be, and political society has jurisdiction over that.
As long as you grasp this. It’s the only part of the discussion that really has any relevance.
While some churches might balk, you can get married in a freaking desert shack, without a license, if you want. You can get married in the middle of the night on a beach all by your lonesome (i.e., the two of you).
But for society to recognize it, you generally need a license, just because the license imposes societal obligations onto the union, which ties to those contractual ones.
There’s no reason whatsoever you can’t buy a house with someone else, or anything like that. But the specific social obligations which connect to “marriage” — THE PART OF IT THAT PLACES AN ONUS ON OTHERS — is what requires the license. Without the license, a hotel is not obligated to allow you to share a room (less significant than it used to be), a hospital is not obligated to allow you to be together during illness (less common than it used to be) and so forth.
YOU are no longer just making a social connection to your S.O — you are also demanding certain things from society with regards to it. Recognition of your special bond, and acquiescence to certain societal benefits which it behooves society to provide in order to encourage it.
I think almost all of the social obligations which happen BETWEEN the two of you can be done with contracts independent of the “marriage license”. The obligations facing OUTWARD are the ones you lose if society does not recognize it.
And that’s a much more complex matter than implied by your argument. Not the least of which being that it impinges on the civil rights of others, particularly regarding religious beliefs. Cake makers, for example. Florists, Churches, and even B&Bs…
https://news.yahoo.com/judge-rules-favor-lesbians-suing-hawaii-b-b-003846543.html
😉
OBloodyHell @1:34pm,
I don’t doubt what you write happened, I believe it is a true account, but how do you square the conclusion you drew from that episode with this graph, https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx , or the fact that Trump did better with black and latino voters than Romney and even better in his second campaign, or the Blexit movement, or Trump actually winning his first election, or the ratings plunges of CNN, or, or, or?
If your point is that there are ignorant, close minded bullies in the world, then yes, I agree. But if your point is that they succeed at convincing people who are open minded and skeptical over the long term, then I disagree. People seeking the truth will find the truth and I do what I can to help them. People seeking lies will find lies.
Rufus T Firefly:
Regarding gay marriage and the fine arguments made for contracts between individuals an the state and covenants made between individuals and the Church, all well and good, except that once the first concession is made the goalposts shift from acceptance/tolerance to full support. The goal it seems is never just acceptance but full support of the most radical position. The left are not honest and accept no limitations. Their goal is compliance with whatever the standard is today.
Gay rights to trans rights to what’s next? The purpose is to exercise power and control in the name of “rights.”
Rufus T. Firefly:
If I’m remembering my law school lessons properly, law is often involved in things that reflect a view of what a society making those laws would like to promote and what it wants to discourage. In general, society is considered to have an interest in marriage and thus in making laws that protect parties (I mean the adults) and protect children. Who can get married, what they’re entitled to on dissolution of that marriage, those things are relevant to the law whether there are children or not. Of course, when there are children, that’s another matter the law tries to deal with, because society has a strong interest in their welfare.
All of this was traditionally regulated by the states (not the feds), which had fairly broad powers. But the Constitution and its amendments apply to the states as well, and states cannot violate the Constitution or its amendments. That’s why miscegenation laws are a big no-no. The question with gay marriage was not whether states can regulate it and allow it – of course they can, and did. It was whether they could ban it and whether that violated the Constitution (IMHO it does not violate it and the decision that it did was a liberal stretch). There were also cross-state concerns that were actually quite complex and I forget some of the details.
But those were the issues, not whether the government can or should regulate marriage. I understand that the latter is a libertarian cause – to get the state out of marriage. But those are the reasons the state is in the marriage business in the first place.
OBloodyHell @1:48pm,
Regarding CL and PML, I won’t argue your statistics, but if any of the PMLs claim to be open minded or interested in truth you can lead them towards CL. David Rubin is perhaps one of the most famous, pop culture examples of this (and it ties in nicely with neo’s Post theme). David is a gay, stand up comedian who set his sights on making money interviewing famous people on his podcast. Completely, politically left. But he likes money, so he’d have all sorts of people on his show. One day he had black, talk show host Larry Elder on. David casually mentioned something about “systemic racism,” assuming Larry would be on board, but Larry took him to school in one of the most embarrassing youtube interview moments in history. After the interview David’s team said we can’t post that. It will hurt the podcast and your brand. David said, post it as is. David is now one of the most reasoned advocates of free speech in popular culture. He was embarrassed as hell by what happened, but he also understand that (L)iberal means being open to all ideas. Larry’s listing of facts caused David to examine what he thought he knew and it eventually changed him. He know truly is a Liberal.
OBloodyHell @1:58pm,
Your argument breaks down at so many different levels I think I must be misunderstanding it. The hospital thing is covered by legal documents. I know this firsthand. The hotel thing, as you point out, is archaic and stupid.
I assume you know any devout practitioner of LDS does not view my wife and I as married; regardless of what paperwork we have signed with our community or church. Our union is not sealed in a Mormon tabernacle so we are not wed, in their eyes. Fine with me and I don’t want my city, county, state or nation to force them to view it differently. Pretty much the same for devout Muslims and their view of our heretical union.
I do not understand your point about impinging on florists and bakers. It was quite awhile ago, but when we contracted with one of each for our wedding ceremony I am quite confident neither asked for us to produce a civic license, or sign paperwork that we promised to wed and only eat the cake after properly taking vows. I’m 99.9999% sure I could walk to the bakery at the bottom of the hill, write them a check, and get a wedding cake for my own, personal consumption.
Civic is civic. Religious is religious. I like religious marriage and highly recommend it, but I don’t want to live in a nation that mandates it. And I’m glad I live in a nation that allows me to be my adult, unwed sister’s legal representative should she be incapacitated.
om @2:03pm,
I am not bolding this as an attack on your comment. I am bolding it because this is the fundamental, critical point that so many fail to see in this debate*.
THE GOAL POSTS CANNOT MOVE IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION OVER IT!
Look at it this way. My wife and I paid a lot of money to send our kids to religious grammar and secondary schools. Those schools do not allow kids of different sexes to share bathrooms or locker rooms. Those schools do not allow kids of different sexes to compete against one another in sports.
But my neighbors, who decided to give the government jurisdiction and authority over their kids’ schools?
If we insist that the government has jurisdiction over marriage, beyond societal, contractual needs, then it is not a question of if, but solely a matter of when; some government bureaucrat backed by an armed policeman, shutters the doors of my church until my parish performs wedding ceremonies for same sex couples.
*Glenn Beck used to make the same arguments you all are making, and after he saw the results of the Supreme Court’s involvement he has become a huge proponent of my cause; getting government out of ALL marriage. It is a darned shame more people didn’t see this coming before the Supreme Court intervened with yet another penumbra of an emanation.
neo @2:04pm,
The government, state or federal, is not “in the marriage business” in my case, and in the views of the majority of your fellow citizens. My wife and I did not consider ourselves married until a Catholic Priest pronounced us man and wife. Full stop. End of sentence. And I have a cousin who considered herself married when her and her husband stomped on a glass in front of a Rabbi. And I have a very close friends who considered themselves married when they walked to City Hall and signed a piece of paper after living together for over 5 years.
What percentage of kids are born out of wedlock in the U.S.? 40% Do those kids lack any of the rights my kids, born after my wife and I wed, did/do?
If my state makes a law that brown haired men cohabitating with red haired women are no longer considered “married” my wife and I wouldn’t give it a second thought. Our religion has authority over our marriage. And I also, sincerely, have no issue with anyone who views marriage differently than my religion does.
They will make the government part of the process. They have no intention of leaving others alone. They will come for your kid’s school bathrooms too. It’s a feature not a bug. Unfortunately government and laws are the means that are used to restrain behavior that is not socially acceptable.
Regarding rights of children, see case law for inheritance or transfer of property, not my monkeys or my circus.
neo,
You did a good job of breaking down the legal issue and how the Supreme Court found its way in, but what if your state passes a new law that the state no longer has any jurisdiction, interest or legal oversight of unions between adults of the legal age of reason?
Your state would still oversee parental rights, powers of attorney, property ownership, etc., but no longer anything to do with unions beyond those things. What would happen? Would the sky fall? Would anything change?
And if your state did that how could the Supreme Court force any church to oversee non-heterosexual unions? It’s no longer something afforded by the state, so the federal government cannot step in under the guise of a denial of rights.
If you don’t want the camel in your tent don’t let the camel’s nose in.
om, “They will make the government part of the process.”
Yes, they will try, but why should I make their cause a fait accompli by ceding them jurisdiction? The words “marriage/married” should not be on any government document. I would gladly back an amendment in my state to eliminate it. “Filing jointly?” Sure. “Owned in common?” Sure. Married? No.
The Left is showing us how important language is. Don’t cede them the word. If you do, they can define it. If you do not, they cannot.
Rufus T. Firefly;
I don’t know what the effect would be, and I don’t think anyone knows.
My gut feeling is that there would be more family chaos and that it would impact negatively on society, but that’s just a gut feeling and I could be very wrong.
But I also am pretty sure (again, my memory of legal stuff is vague, but this is what I think is correct) states would not be allowed to pass laws that prohibited the state from entering into a certain class of laws so broadly, in areas that traditionally states have been allowed to regulate, and that don’t violate the Constitution or its amendments. It might take a state constitutional amendment to do so, and even then I’m not sure it would pass muster in the courts. I’m not at all sure a state legislature would be allowed to tie down future state legislatures so broadly and sweepingly.
Rufus T Firefly:
That horse (marriage/married) left the barn a long time ago, moot, latches, etc. Now it is on to bathrooms and gender; anyone can have any gender they want on any day or any hour, because consensus and liberty. It’s a process of societal destruction, just my opinion.
Rufus T. Firefly:
And the state (at the local level of states, for the most part) is indeed in the marriage business, just as it’s in the crime business and many other businesses – to encourage certain behavior and to prohibit other behaviors, supposedly for the benefit of society. That’s what a lot of law is about. I have never seen anything that indicates the majority of people think the state should have NO say in marriage; it’s long been my impression that the disagreement is about how much say and exactly what type of say.
My favorite course in law school was about the philosophy of law and the purpose of legal systems. This comes under that heading, I believe. I’m not saying I’m an expert, and of course things may have changed since then as well. But I find the topic of great interest.
I’m not sure but in Texas if you marry in the church you still have to get a license from the county court house. Maybe I’m wrong but I think we did. It’s been 30 years.
jack,
Yes. Of course. Same thing everywhere, except some religious leaders are also certified as “justices o’ the peace.” And the reason is: drumroll……….
Because they are two, different things. The state needs to know who I am sharing property with and giving legal authority over decisions in my life. My church wants to impose its tenets on me, and my spouse. Just as my church cannot legally force my wife and I to raise our kids in the faith; my state cannot threaten my wife and me with excommunication should we fail to abstain from eating meat on some Friday, during Lent.
neo,
The state should be in the crime business to protect the citizenry.
This is a HUGE difference in the system of government our founders gave us. We individuals are sovereign and the federal government is limited to 14, explicit powers. States are free to create laws not covered by those powers, but the overarching premise should be adhered to: Individuals are sovereign and are born with rights.
What concern should it have regarding romance? If you start listing concrete points they are all easily shot down*.
1. neo, I forgot that your career involved family counseling(?) Regardless of the details, this is an area you are very well versed in.
2. I personally believe marriage means; one woman and one man coming together to form a family. But I personally believe a lot of things that would also be dangerous to give the government control to enforce or mandate. I believe society would be greatly improved if all adult men and women dressed presentably when out in public. I also do not want to have Talibani with whips thrashing grown men wearing shorts in public places, or grown women wearing jeans that look like a tiger paw shredded them.
*The state should regulate marriage to protect children. O.K., what if biological parents are killed in a plane crash. Can the childrens’ two, spinster Aunts care for the children? How about two, very close family friends who are female and unrelated? Should we require one or both of those two women to marry a male in order to be foster parents? If we allow them to live together and raise the children should we make them sign a document, punishable with imprisonment, should the two women ever embrace, or kiss, or?
Just stop and think about the system of government our founding fathers gave us, and the brilliant philosophy behind it, and then think about what happens when you, or anyone else, attempt to force pet issues into the framework. Would real Americans have a system that requires them to petition a government functionary for permission to live and breed with another free, American citizen? “Oh please, Mr./Ms. county clerk. Please agree that my fiance and I can live with one another and be viewed as worthy in your benevolent eyes and the state for which you are overseer.”